(This should be obvious but I am in no means meaning to pick on Mapbox
or Apple here - as anyone who knows me will testify, I have the utmost
respect both for Mapbox's technical chops, their ability to iterate on a
compelling product and their success in building the biggest mapping
platform using OSM data; and I've been an Apple fanboy since my first
Mac IIsi back in, erk, 1992. They're just the two that sprang to mind,
bearing in mind that as someone that old, these social networks about
photos and stuff are way too modern for me.)

It should also be said that many providers - the majority - provide
attribution in compliance with our policy at osm.org/copyright, i.e.
showing attribution in the corner of the map, and in many cases
generously going beyond with "Improve this map" pages; and that some
providers will do great things like this much of the time and resort to
"(i)" or "About" only part of the time.

Historically the aim of requiring attribution has been partly to thank
contributors, and partly because it's a virtuous feedback loop. If you
see a map and it's wrong or incomplete, seeing "(c) OpenStreetMap" in
the corner shows you where the data comes from, so you can go and
improve it. That way we get more contributors, the map gets better, it's
more valuable to its consumers, so more people use it, so more people
improve it... and so on.

The legal rationale is 4.3 in the Open Database Licence
(https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html), and in
particular "if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a
notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make
any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise
exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the
Database". The key phrase is "reasonably calculated" and our view in
2012 was that, since the major mapping providers (Google,
Navteq/Nokia/HERE, TomTom etc.) required and implemented on-screen
attribution, "reasonably" meant that users would expect a credit to be
provided in that way. The OSMF FAQ makes this explicit: "you should
expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same
prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier".

Full mea culpa: the /copyright page says "should" rather than "must"
purely because I wrote the page, I'm British and I, we, talk like that
(http://termcoord.eu/2016/08/the-truth-behind-british-impoliteness/ ,
especially the "I would suggest" line). It used to say "request" rather
than "require" for the same reason. In retrospect I should have realised
not everyone is British and we should really have hired a lawyer to
review the page. I think that months in the trenches of the licence
change had probably given us trench fever for things like that. Entirely
my fault and I take full responsibility for it (but you know, it's so
great not to have to write 500 monthly mails to legal-talk@ any more).

So we need to decide what our response is to web/in-app maps that do not
provide attribution in the manner requested by osm.org/copyright. This
response might be:

a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we
will update our requirements to say so
b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen
but we do not intend to update our requirements
c) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we
will update our requirements to say so
d) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we
will update our requirements to say so, and we will proactively seek out
data consumers that contravene these requirements
e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :)

Ultimately this decision has to come from the community. The rights in
OSM data, as the Contributor Terms makes clear, are held by the
contributors. OSMF is "using and sublicensing" it, under the terms that
you grant to OSMF, but you own the rights. OSMF is not able to license
away the rights of mappers.

There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but
the issue has never really broken through. Let's talk about it openly,
honestly and respectfully and get it sorted out for the benefit of both
mappers and data consumers.

In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how they
find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom logo
like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap

With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other companies.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

On 01/03/19 09:50, Paul Norman via talk wrote:

> On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service"
>> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an
>> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
>>
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png>> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG>
>
> In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how
> they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom
> logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap
>
> With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
> attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other
> companies. hat is a good thing on a small screen.

OSMand drops all the symbols from its map display when your not using
the screen - maximising the view of the map.
That is a good thing on a small screen.

Some apps start with an introductory screen (a 'splash' screen?) while
they boot. That might be a good place to have the OSM attribution?
Possibly there needs to be a selection of OSM attributions that the user
can select from?

-------------------

There are certain legal words that are used to enforce action. The word
'should' in not one of them.
From my recollection the words 'shall' and 'will' are clearer choices,
one word for the customer, another for the provider.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

> On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service"
>> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an
>> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
>>
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png>> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG>
> In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how
> they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom
> logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap
>
> With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
> attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other
> companies.

Agreed. The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny.

I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that the
attribution rules be followed.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any more. ) Sure we could get legal, but imagine the number of legal opinions about what "reasonably calculated" means.

We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort.

> On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:>>>> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service">> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an>> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:>>>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png>> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG>> In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how> they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom> logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap>> With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"> attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other> companies.

Agreed. The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny.

I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that theattribution rules be followed.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi,

what I write below is my own opinion and not that of the OSMF board,
just as Mikel's opinion is his own and not that of the OSMF board.

On 01.03.19 02:51, Mikel Maron wrote:
> These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to
> happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if
> OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to
> enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans
> -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any
> more. )

You make three points here, one that there's no rules we could enforce,
and then you say even if we could shame people into adhering to rules
that we cannot enforce, we shouldn't do that either, and that the reason
for this largesse was that "we have won".

I disagree in all three points.

1. I think that we can set up rules - not mere "recommendations" - that
we can enforce.

2. I think that we should shame people into following our rules if they
don't do it voluntarily.

3. I think that we should be firm in asserting our place in the geo data
world, and as long as other players in the field use intellectual
property regulations to their advantage, we should too. As long as
Google only give you their maps if you in turn acquiesce to being
tracked, so should we only give people our maps if they are willing to
follow our rules. This has nothing to do with "having won".

> We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation.

Frankly, I wouldn't believe you even if you were a lawyer. But you aren't!

> We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can
> only be formulated through the OSMF

We would have to find a way to exclude corporate interests from
formulating that recommendation though, or we'd be like a supermarket
that lets its customers set the price. I.e. no board members or working
group members working for any business affected by a decision should
participate, and neither should the "advisory board" on which corporate
interests are represented.

The fact that the resulting sub-group of the OSMF would be quite small
is food for thought!

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mikel Maron wrote:
> We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation.
> We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation
> can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion
> will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on
> the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the
> guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort.

How this works in practice (and I realise you know this, Mikel, I'm just
writing this out for the wider audience) is that the Licensing Working Group
puts together Community Guidelines:

These, as the name implies, represent the settled will of the community
through practical, example-rich guidelines, explaining how the Open Database
Licence applies to the data that the community has created and owns the
rights in.

As the Community Guidelines page on the OSMF website says, "OSMF's role as
Licensor and publisher of the database should not involve dictating policy."

The existing (seven) guidelines focus on the applications of the sharealike
half of the licence. There is clearly some ambiguity about how attribution
is applied in practice, particularly in massive collective databases and in
smaller-screen situations, and such ambiguities is exactly what the
guidelines are intended for - "helping folks use OpenStreetMap data when
there is a concern about ambiguity or grey area in the specific and
practical context of the Open Database License, ODbL" to quote the LWG.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so

b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen but we do not intend to update our requirements

c) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so

d) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so, and we will proactively seek out data consumers that contravene these requirements

e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :)

Ultimately this decision has to come from the community. The rights in OSM data, as the Contributor Terms makes clear, are held by the contributors. OSMF is "using and sublicensing" it, under the terms that you grant to OSMF, but you own the rights. OSMF is not able to license away the rights of mappers.

There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but the issue has never really broken through. Let's talk about it openly, honestly and respectfully and get it sorted out for the benefit of both mappers and data consumers.

a) would require changing license again, right?

ODBL has

"You must include a notice associated with

the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,

views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced

Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative

Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it

Does having to display the attribution constrain the layout, sure, but
that isn't different than for example if you would be using google, so
not a hardship that only we are inflicting (and naturally essentially
every imagery layer has attribution requirements that are similar).

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Well wrote this yesterday at 3 AM, however due to the images it got stuck so im uploading them else where.

Over the last months i have expressed my concern about these
interpretations of "its not on ODbL", OSMF requests dont count a
thing, or it should be write "must" instead of "should".
Most of the companies use Mapbox and sadly this is setting a trend
of "hidding"/ three step to view the attribution. Most famous cases
are Instagram, SnapChat, Facebook in every app or even on the
desktop browser....guess the size of the device for attribution
doesnt apply here... speaking of the word HERE, they even credit OSM
data to HERE (funny enough OSM is the only map that maps cable cars
as ways). Maybe HERE its shorter to be displayed as
attribution... check the email bellow i sent to Mapbox in August
2018 and after few back and fourth emails....asked me on December
the 4th to send URL to the screenshots when most of them are from
apps. Can someone teach me how to grab url from them? And Facebook
only replied to me once, never got a response from my second email....

I have requested several developers to fix it, few examples:

Pix4Dmapper (which on their desktop software isnt crediting OSM)

Moovit (they replied they do in their three dots icons under
PARTNERS...afaik we do not do partnerships).

Maps.me have a 2 second
display of the attribution when you open their app...to my email they replied "
Even companies like Apple and Facebook and apps like OsmAnd and Galileo
maps are using OSM data without link to OSM copyright page while
browsing the map."

I believe
Attribution is important
because it shows the source
of the data, complies with OSM copyright and can eventually
attract more contributors to OSM (if 0.2% of Facebook members
contribute....how many would they be? problably most wont even go
through the 3 step to see the attribution...not everyone are maps geek.
But more importantly,
Facebook lack of attribution sets a terrible example on
how to use OSM data without the requested attribution.
If Facebook doesn't attribute why would any other startup or
anyone else attribute?

I advocate for a permanent
visible attribution. Do understand smartphone screens are smaller, none
the less i dont see anyone not using GOOGLE attribution (cof cof we use
that as an example on OSMF page on how to attribute). Solution in my
point of view: OSM Logo as attribution ormake a shorter attribution.

Only
devices that should have a "non permanent" are wearable devices,
example Garmin devices uses OSM and credits on the info button.

Another client of yours that is not complying with ODbL and with
the requested attribution is Facebook/Instagram. They even credit
maps to HERE which are OSM (via Mapbox on their Windows app).

Print-screen with proof (which as been sent to Facebook too, only
got one reply after one month of sending the first email, which
was quick replied by me and still no feedback on these). The
layout is exactly the same (yours, Mapbox) as this bad
attribution that they have with a "i". I understand the usage of
the "i" on a mobile device, on a desktop its just "hiding" the
proper attribution, especially when they have two steps to check
the attribution (click "i", click "legal map data" hyperlink to this
page which credits Mapbox and OSM.... when OSM should be
visible from the start as requested on the OSMF page, which i
transcribe in the end of the email.

Facebook "attribution", which is completely wrong:

link to photo https://ibb.co/MSbgsW6NOTICE TO TALK LIST, you have to press 3 times to acknowledge the map source...when it was HERE it was permanently visible

Part of the email sent to Facebook:

Examples of bad Facebook maps:

1) This map on the Facebook Windows App credits HERE on the
lower left corner. I'm 100% sure that's not HERE ( i confirmed
now as im writing the email, that this is still being credited
to HERE). Firstly HERE does not map cable car as ways (check
their map), on this map the Funchal
cable car is represented as way just like OSM does. Also
the land-use on the natural areas, matches last year geometry
of OSM DB. The islets (which HERE does not map) and coastline
to
which i and others have contributed since 2011 is
different. The ferry boat from Funchal to Porto Santo is
labelled as "Funchal-Porto Santo-Funchal" as in OSM and not "Funchal-
Porto Santo" as in HERE. This is clearly misleading
users of what's the source of the map (also there's no "i",
even used wrongly with that hyperlink without displaying it
right away). There might be HERE data on the map, however
crediting HERE with visible attribution and not OSM is
disrespectful.

For a browsable electronic map
(e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application), the
credit should typically appear in the corner of the map, as
commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps.

Please do not allow your clients to act this way, not only its
not complying with OBdL, its a lack of respect for the
contributors and OSM community.

But more important, acting like Facebook sets a terrible example
of how not to use OSM open data without complying with OBdL. If
they, why would anyone else?

- I would have preferred that the discussion take place when
we've actually written something, because some of the issues
raised have been settled since at least 2014, including obtaining
legal advice on what "reasonably calculated" is, but that's life
:-). In any case the community can expect a draft guideline for
discussion in the upcoming months.

And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the
results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a)
states that the attribution is be default expanded, and b) that
should be the case "whereever possible" which in our
understandinglimits the use of a default collapsed
attribution to cases where it is physically impossible to show the
expanded version, for example very small map snippets. In 2014 we
felt that this was acceptable (we don't have an formal statement
on this iirc), and I would go out on a limb and say that it would
still be considered a reasonable guideline.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

c) I recommend doing this, I
tried mailing Mapbox about their license-breaking

hiding attribution but at
first their responded claiming that OSBL allows that,

after quoting that part of
them they went back to not responding

d) what would be our options
for especially stubborn ones? DMCA filed by OSMF?

....

Just to be clear on this, the OSMF licences use of OSM data and
derivates directly to the "end customer". In this case to the
companies that are using a third parties infrastructure to produce
rendered maps from OSM data. So while we can stipulate an ethical
and moral obligation of the third party to enforce attribution
requirements, legally it is an obligation of the
website/service/whatever operator that is a customer of the third
party.

This is btw not specific to the ODbL it is common to many open
licences and is one of the things I don't particularly like as it
clearly doesn't scale.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the
results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a)
states that the attribution is be default expanded, and b) that
should be the case "whereever possible" which in our
understandinglimits the use of a default collapsed
attribution to cases where it is physically impossible to show the
expanded version, for example very small map snippets. In 2014 we
felt that this was acceptable (we don't have an formal statement
on this iirc), and I would go out on a limb and say that it would
still be considered a reasonable guideline.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

c) I recommend doing this, I
tried mailing Mapbox about their license-breaking

hiding attribution but at
first their responded claiming that OSBL allows that,

after quoting that part of
them they went back to not responding

d) what would be our options
for especially stubborn ones? DMCA filed by OSMF?

....

Just to be clear on this, the OSMF licences use of OSM data and
derivates directly to the "end customer". In this case to the
companies that are using a third parties infrastructure to produce
rendered maps from OSM data. So while we can stipulate an ethical
and moral obligation of the third party to enforce attribution
requirements, legally it is an obligation of the
website/service/whatever operator that is a customer of the third
party.

Yes, I know that. But I guess that while it would have many harmful side effects

and it should be used as a last resort I guess that Mapbox would react if they customers would start

getting DMCAs.

And anyway Mapbox itself is also hosting some maps that on mobile refuse to show

proper attribution (despite that it would take less space than Mapbox logo that is

displayed), so their example pages can be DMCAed.

Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and individual

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of
the results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by
Mapbox https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847
which a) states that the attribution is be default expanded,
and b) that should be the case "whereever possible" which
in our understandinglimits the use of a default
collapsed attribution to cases where it is physically
impossible to show the expanded version, for example very
small map snippets. In 2014 we felt that this was acceptable
(we don't have an formal statement on this iirc), and I would
go out on a limb and say that it would still be considered a
reasonable guideline.

This is at best outdated.

We've not received any communication from Mapbox that would indicate
that.

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

> > 28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where -
> > depending on user settings - that's either going to be too small to be
> > readable, or so big it obscures what people need to see.
>
> That is a bit of a myth

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

In particular i have been pointing out the insulting and disrespectful
nature of second rate attributions - that is people producing other
attributions (most frequently for themselves) significantly more
prominently or accessible than for OSM.

There are of course corporate interests who try to milk OSM for all it's
worth while maximizing their short term ROI and not giving back any
more than they absolutely have to. That is natural and expected but it
is up to us to define what "they absolutely have to". If we have and
express a clear view on what we require in terms of attribution and we
are willing to actually demand this from data users this would not be
an issue. This ultimately is an economic problem and not a legal
problem.

This however leads me to what i perceive to be the real problem here.
The OSM community does not really speak with one voice on this matter
even if you exclude the corporate interests in your analysis. During
the license change discussion it became clear that there is a
significant fraction of the OSM community who would have preferred it
if OSM had adopted a CC0 or similar license without either share-alike
or a hard attribution requirement. It has been argued many times that
this would not have been a wise decision and that OSM would not be
anywhere near where it is today without a license requiring share-alike
and attribution. The fraction of the OSM community who dislike the
share-alike and attribution requirements is much smaller today than it
was right after the license change probably. There are quite a few
prominent community members who have expressed they changed their
opinion on this for example. But we also have quite a few people who
are still convinced that OSM would be better off with a more liberal
license and who would gladly change it if there was a majority for it
and who in the meantime would be in favour of interpreting the
attribution and share-alike requirements as weakly as possible.

This sub-surface schism in the OSM community, which is of course further
nutured by corporate interests, is IMO the real problem and you could
see the inproper attribution from data users as merely a symptom of
this.

What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular
with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this
conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this
resulting in gross inconsistencies. And in a way it is understandable
if coporate data users use this as a basis to try to take this a step
further.

The way to solve this would IMO be for the OSM community to actually in
substance accept the idea of the ODbL and the social contract among
mappers and between mappers and data users it imples as a core
component of the constitution of the project. So far i think this can
only be said for the fundamental idea of open data in general but not
for the idea of hard attribution and share-alike requirements.